The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1887-03-16
A WRONG IMPRESSION.

Ouresteemed brotherofthe Green
vile Reflector has an editorial, called
forth by some remarks in this paper
on the convict labor question: which
it may be worth while to notice, be-
cause it was Evidently written under
a misrepresentation, and may convey
a wrong Impression to those who
are not readers okTHE PROGRESSIVE
FARMER. We made the statement,
that in the SodthernVStatcs since the
war the convicts were worked tor
the benefit of private enterprises and
corporations, and not for the benefit
of the people. Is this not true? In
connection with this statement we
called attention to the act of the
Legislature granting 325 convicts
foran indefinite time to drain swamps
and cut roads through property of
private individuals in eastern coun-
ties, which our esteemed brother
finds fault with and constructs as an
evidence Of opposition to the people
# the east, and Of sympathy with
Richmond NJ. Pearson, because Mr..
Pearson led in the opposition to that
measure. Our friend was eve more
mistaken in his life than in both of
these impressions, if he really enter
tains them, as between the people
of the east and of the west, or cen
tire, we know no difference. They
are all our people, and they will have
our hearty cooperation in the efforts
to better their condition. But are
the men for whom these swamps arc
to be drained, and roads cut the "peo-
ple' Of the east? As for being in
sympathy with Richmond NJ. Pear
son-an interrogative %insinuation
which must have sprung from want
of thought-we deem it necessary
only to say that neither he nOr any
other mar who stood in the halls of
the last Legislature was large enough
in body to cast a shadow ove this
paper, nor potent enough in in1u-
ence to swerve us from the course
we believed to be right the one-tenth
part of the diameter of a hair. Our
comments on this and other ques-
tons affecting the interests of the
people are made utterly regardless
of the existence of any real or would
be leaders Of parties or factions in
side OF out of the Legislative halls.
Among the active opponents of
that measure was DR.. Worth, of
Randolph, (whom the editor Of the
Reflector would not, therefore, indi-
rectly charge with being a "Pearson-
ite,') and who as State Treasurer for
a number of years had ample oppor-
tunities to learn something about the
practical workings of this swamp
draining, and how much benefit the
State or people derived from it. He
stated i'm debate that the State had
expended some S25O,OOO or $780, 600
and got back less than $4,000. 1t
was not near $4,000, but we put it at
this because we have not the exact
figures to refer to. Our recollection
is $4,000. Many miles of swamp
lands are drained at heavy expense
to the State, and when drained and
put in condition to be s%erviceablc at
little cost they are put up at public
sale in $4,000, 10000 or $4,000 acre
tracts or more and sold to the highest
bidder. generally at figures little more
than enough to pay the costs Of sale.
The buyers reap the benefit while
the State pays the bill. We don't
object to draining swamps when the
swamps r worth draining, but we
want to see it done in a way that
the State who does it and the peo-
pie for whom it is supposed to be
done derive some benefit from it, and
not a handful Of individuals or a few
spectators who stand about to watch
opportunities and take advantage Of
them.
x GRASS CULTURE.